Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and educators urge more local capacity as committee hears HB1325 study on behavioral services
Summary
At a House Education Committee hearing on HB1325, parents and education leaders described gaps in local behavioral and special‑education services and urged a cross‑agency data study; lawmakers agreed to hold the bill for further drafting after testimony.
The House Education Committee held testimony on HB1325, a bill directing a cross‑agency study to identify spending and service gaps for students with high‑acuity behavioral and special‑education needs.
Representative Pfaff (speaker 4) framed the proposal as a coordination effort between the Department of Education, FSSA, Department of Health and DCS to quantify spending and service delivery so policymakers can design shared pathways and funding mechanisms. He said the bill is intended to clarify cost‑sharing and program roles rather than impose immediate new mandates on schools.
A father, Jake Maynard (speaker 9), gave a detailed, personal account of placing his 11‑year‑old son in residential treatment out of state because local options were lacking. Maynard described multiple inpatient stays, insurance denials, and out‑of‑pocket costs (he said one placement required $94,000 for an eight‑week program and that some placements run about $2,100 per day). He told the committee, “Families should not have to reach crisis mode or leave Indiana to get help.”
Directors and school leaders echoed the need for data and cross‑agency coordination. Amy Selby (speaker 14), a director of special education, said intense behaviors are becoming more frequent and that school wait lists for placements can take years; she urged support for system handoffs and clearer cross‑agency awareness of costs. Todd Hitchcock (speaker 15), a superintendent, described the operational strain on teachers and administrators when multiple students require daily intensive interventions.
Labor and professional groups — including the American Federation of Teachers of Indiana and the Indiana Association of School Principals — expressed conditional support for HB1325, asking only that school social workers be included among stakeholders consulted in the study.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about Medicaid waivers, funding sources for residential placements, and the interaction of the proposed study with existing excess‑cost special education funds. The bill was held for further amendment and will be revisited at the committee’s next meeting.
Key testimony underscored both the human cost of current placement gaps and the legislature’s limited fiscal tools absent a clearer accounting of where money is spent across agencies.
